Vodashwrote:
People just need to stop putting so much weight behind arbitrary review scores and actually think for themselves through research whether a game might be enjoyable or not.

True that. While it can actually lead you to really great games, it can also prevent you from finding a game that would truly interest you just because a group of people disliked it for whatever the reason it may be. I have a few games on steam that have relatively terrible ratings on them but I totally don't mind.

Personally I think people take reviews too much to heart. If someone is reviewing, it seems to be that a lot of the time they're either ecstatic or going on a total rant. That makes it seem like several reviews are biased, so if someone takes it completely seriously they're buying (or not) because of someone else's opinion. Reviews should just be taken into consideration rather than be the deciding factor.

Not all ideas are well thought out or well-expressed, I'll admit. Where I'm lost is how restricting the marketplace of ideas by making the ability to write and distribute reviews on popular reviewing sites contingent upon a purchase is going to solve that problem.

Edit: I mean, if someone is really a fanboy/fangirl for a particular video game or anime franchise it doesn't make sense that they wouldn't also purchase the products of that franchise. You wouldn't eliminate biased reviewing from exceedingly passionate fans at all, and in fact you'd run the risk of making their opinions disproportionately loud.

Restricting a purchase won't solve the problem, however it will decrease the problem.

It may not kill off the fan(boys/girls) of the game. However if will stop the flamewar between platforms. Think about it, if you want to post a hate review on one platform and a good review of the same game on another platform. Then you'll have to but the game twice to be avail to do that... And I don't think people will do that just to make the system they don't own look bad.

Well, Haters and Fanboys exist pretty much everywhere. If you go to websites like Amazon, you will see that pretty much every anime has a review with someone giving it a 1 star and not really explaining why they hate it so much, and 5 star reviews doing the same thing.

The whole number system in ratings is fucked anyway. According to number scores now-a-days, a game is only good if it's a 9 or 10, it's OK if it's 7-8, and if it's below 7 it's not even worth playing.

People just need to stop putting so much weight behind arbitrary review scores and actually think for themselves through research whether a game might be enjoyable or not.

^This
I think the problem really lies with in the rating system as well. To me rating systems are utter garbage as it defeats the purpose of the review. Someone can easily skip to the end of a video or just look at the score and not bother watching/reading the reasons why the subject being reviewed received that score.

What Metacritic, critics, and etc should do is drop any form of rating score and only have the review. Also "This Game is the BEST GAME EVAR. Game of the year." is not a review because it fails to tell me why it's the best game.

I only look at metascore which is only the overall score of official reviews. I also READ the reviews (and not only the rating), because there are maybe some points that the critic made that I could disagree with.

The user score doesn't mean anything anymore, since it's so trendy to hate these days. Most of the time, the people who are satisfied with their game do not claim it all over the internet. The haters, however, they feel like it's their job to spread their hate everywhere so... The world is filled with so much negativity these days

This position doesn't make sense to me. Could you explain why it is that someone who is disinterested in purchasing a work ought not review it?

It's simple. I can't accept a review as credible if said reviewer hasn't actually played the game and experienced it for himself. Sadly, many of these "troll" reviews on Metacritic stem from users who probably never played a second of the game, which is partly why I tend to ignore user reviews in the first place.

I haven't used Metacritic or Gamerankings in years, really. My interest in gaming is a lot different than most and I feel I can judge what I'll enjoy with what I see/read about. I don't need to know an average score from random websites and people.

It's simple. I can't accept a review as valid if said reviewer hasn't actually played the game and experienced it for himself. Sadly, many of these "troll" reviews on Metacritic stem from users who probably never played a second of the game, which is exactly why I tend to ignore user reviews.

Actually, there's a bit of a problem with the assumption that if someone hasn't purchased a work they've not played it/watched it/read it/listened to it, and that problem is that a lack of purchase guarantees no such thing. Placing piracy at the side, there are legitimate means through which to obtain copies of a work without purchasing it. These could include rental, borrowing, or (if the work is in the public domain) simply downloading a copy. Another problem is that purchase actually doesn't guarantee consumption. I could buy a huge bag of sand and never do anything at all with it, after all. I could buy a whole stack of games and let them collect dust.

I have never purchased a single one of the works of John Philip Sousa or Richard Wagner, but I can guarantee you I've heard them. I have never purchased The Big Lebowski, but I assure you I've seen that film. I've never purchased Tengen Toppa Gurren Lagann, but I have seen every single episode. And I did not pirate a single one of them. How sad it would be if I were forced purchase a copy of each in order to prove that I have in fact seen or heard them when a purchase actually guarantees nothing more than my ownership of a copy.

Restricting a purchase won't solve the problem, however it will decrease the problem.

It may not kill off the fan(boys/girls) of the game. However if will stop the flamewar between platforms. Think about it, if you want to post a hate review on one platform and a good review of the same game on another platform. Then you'll have to but the game twice to be avail to do that... And I don't think people will do that just to make the system they don't own look bad.

I'm not so sure. Let's imagine two people, Person A and Person B. Next, we'll assume that Person A is a diehard fan of Platform A while Person B is a diehard fan of Platform B. Additionally, we'll assume that both have purchased a copy of the same game, but each did so for their preferred platform. Finally, we'll assume that both have entered the purchasing codes they received with their respective copies and submitted reviews at the same reviewing site.

Why does the assumption that Person A and Person B now have to enter purchasing codes to post their reviews prevent a flame war between them? What I would expect to see happen is that Person A and Person B, who we've already assumed to be biased, would simply incorporate their criticisms of all other platforms into a single review instead of writing a review for each console. Is that something one cannot do on the particular reviewing site we're discussing?

It's simple. I can't accept a review as valid if said reviewer hasn't actually played the game and experienced it for himself. Sadly, many of these "troll" reviews on Metacritic stem from users who probably never played a second of the game, which is exactly why I tend to ignore user reviews.

Actually, there's a bit of a problem with the assumption that if someone hasn't purchased a work they've not played it/watched it/read it/listened to it, and that problem is that a lack of purchase guarantees no such thing. Placing piracy at the side, there are legitimate means through which to obtain copies of a work without purchasing it. These could include rental, borrowing, or (if the work is in the public domain) simply downloading a copy. Another problem is that purchase actually doesn't guarantee consumption. I could buy a huge bag of sand and never do anything at all with it, after all. I could buy a whole stack of games and let them collect dust.

I have never purchased a single one of the works of John Philip Sousa or Richard Wagner, but I can guarantee you I've heard them. I have never purchased The Big Lebowski, but I assure you I've seen that film. I've never purchased Tengen Toppa Gurren Lagann, but I have seen every single episode. And I did not pirate a single one of them. How sad it would be if I were forced purchase a copy of each in order to prove that I have in fact seen or heard them when a purchase actually guarantees nothing more than my ownership of a copy.

True, but users who have rented, borrowed, or even *gasp* pirated the game would have at least experienced the game itself, and thus would still be able to lend a credible opinion in the form of a review. To me, requiring reviewers to actually present ownership credentials will at least kick out quite a few of the average users who never experienced the game, yet still post asinine reviews simply to troll or hate on rival games/platforms just because they find it amusing; in that sense, such a system would be more effective than the current system Metacritic has in place.

One of the biggest gaming news sites (Gamespot) owns Metacritics and this means that they have close ties to game publishers and developers. So all they have to do is put a Metacritics redeem code in every game package or throw in a code whit the email you get once you've bought something off of Steam, GOG, PSN etc.